Public engagement for inclusive and sustainable governance of climate interventions

The increasing urgency of climate change necessitates exploration of various climate intervention technologies, including CDR and SRM. However, the implementation of these technologies raises significant ethical and governance challenges, particularly concerning public acceptance and participation. Past controversies surrounding technological advancements emphasize the importance of incorporating public perspectives early in the development and deployment process, preventing conflicts and fostering a sense of ownership. The energy sector's experiences highlight the potential consequences of neglecting public engagement; controversial energy projects faced significant opposition due to insufficient public involvement. Conversely, successful energy transitions have often been characterized by meaningful public participation and energy citizenship. The responsible research and innovation (RRI) framework advocates integrating public values and interests into the governance of emerging technologies, particularly in high-stakes situations where legal regulations are still developing and uncertainties abound. The lack of adequate public involvement in previous geoengineering initiatives resulted in termination or suspension, reinforcing the critical need for comprehensive societal appraisal. Therefore, this study investigates public preferences regarding the governance of climate intervention technologies to understand how diverse publics can contribute to just and sustainable governance arrangements.

Existing literature highlights the need for public engagement in the governance of emerging climate intervention technologies. Several scholars have called for a participatory turn in science and technology policy, advocating for upstream public engagement and societal appraisal processes. Studies in adjacent fields, like energy systems, show the critical role of meaningful public engagement in ensuring social acceptance and successful implementation of new technologies. While some research suggests that increased public participation can improve environmental governance outcomes, other analyses highlight the limitations of deficit models of public understanding of science. These models assume public opposition stems from a lack of knowledge, focusing on improving science communication to enhance public acceptance. However, scholars from science and technology studies (STS) demonstrate that this approach overlooks the complex social, political, and ethical dimensions of public engagement. The literature often focuses on expert perspectives on public participation, neglecting to explore how publics themselves envision their roles and ways of engaging with such technologies. Existing frameworks for public participation are frequently criticized for relying on institutional framings and neglecting bottom-up or citizen-led forms of engagement. Systemic approaches that move beyond institutional forms and analyze diverse participation practices within socio-material settings are gaining traction.

This study employed a qualitative research design using 44 focus groups conducted in 22 countries across the Global North and Global South. A total of 323 participants with diverse socio-demographic backgrounds participated. The focus groups included a mix of urban and rural participants in each country. The research team collaborated with Norstat, a data collection company, for recruitment and implementation of the focus groups. The discussion guide presented various climate intervention technologies, including biogenic CDR (afforestation/reforestation, soil carbon sequestration), engineered CDR (DACCS, enhanced weathering, BECCS), and SRM (SAI, MCB, SPACE). The main guiding question prompted reflection on the public's role in decision-making about these approaches. All focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English. The data were managed, coded, and analyzed using MAXQDA software. Thematic analysis was conducted, integrating deductive and inductive coding strategies. The participation and engagement categories were cross-referenced with specific climate intervention technologies. The first two authors coded the data, and inter-coder agreement was established through a negotiated agreement approach. The analysis focuses on recurring themes across various focus groups, while acknowledging contextual variations and limitations of relying solely on country mentions. Ethical approval was obtained from Aarhus University. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, ensuring anonymity and data security.

The study identified a range of public engagement forms and intensities, from passive information reception to active decision-making. Information and education were consistently identified as crucial, highlighting the need for effective communication about climate intervention technologies. Self- and community engagement, particularly concerning biogenic CDR methods, was prevalent, with participants envisioning active roles in implementing these approaches. Community consultation processes were emphasized across diverse contexts, with suggestions for various formats, including town hall meetings, debates, and online surveys. Direct decision-making through referenda, plebiscites, or petitions was also discussed, especially regarding SAI, reflecting a desire for greater public influence on globally impactful technologies. Electing and influencing political representatives and supporting civil society organizations were also noted as forms of indirect public engagement. However, a significant portion of participants expressed ambivalence or disinterest in public engagement, particularly concerning SRM. This was often linked to concerns about the complexity and technicality of the technologies and the potential for manipulation. There was considerable variation in preferences depending on the specific technology. Biogenic CDR methods, perceived as simpler and more locally applicable, elicited a greater emphasis on active self-engagement, while engineered CDR and SRM technologies generated more discussion about consultation processes and the role of experts. Rationales for and against public engagement reflected diverse conceptions of the public and its capacity to contribute meaningfully to the governance of these technologies. These conceptions ranged from informed, active citizens to potentially uninformed or easily manipulated individuals. Trust in institutions and experts also played a significant role, varying across different national contexts and political systems.

This research contributes significantly to the emerging literature on public engagement with climate intervention technologies. The findings reveal a broader range of engagement options than typically captured by existing participation theories, highlighting the importance of adopting systemic perspectives that account for diverse participation practices and socio-political contexts. The results underscore the inadequacy of deficit models of public understanding and highlight the need for co-productive approaches that acknowledge the valuable knowledge and experiences possessed by different publics. The study also reveals diverse rationales for and against public engagement, reflecting complex interplay of trust in institutions, perceived technical complexity, and differing views on democratic legitimacy. The findings further illustrate the need for nuanced, context-specific engagement strategies that account for national contexts, technological idiosyncrasies, and power dynamics. The observed variations in public preferences across countries and technologies challenge simplistic, one-size-fits-all approaches to public engagement. The significant level of ambivalence and disinterest toward public engagement highlights the need for careful consideration of procedural legitimacy and the creation of trustworthy engagement processes.

This study emphasizes the critical need for inclusive and sustainable governance of climate intervention technologies. It highlights the importance of recognizing the diversity of engagement forms, tailoring approaches to specific technologies, building trust and procedural legitimacy, engaging with value disagreements, and recognizing power dynamics. Future research should further explore the interplay between national contexts and public engagement preferences, examine the effectiveness of different engagement strategies in achieving just and equitable outcomes, and develop more nuanced and context-specific tools for assessing and managing public perceptions of these technologies. The study's findings offer valuable insights for policymakers and researchers seeking to establish robust and legitimate governance frameworks for climate intervention technologies.

The study's reliance on focus group data limits the generalizability of the findings. While the sample included a diverse range of countries and socio-demographic backgrounds, it might not fully represent the perspectives of all relevant publics. The focus groups primarily elicited participants' perspectives and preferences, rather than directly assessing the effectiveness of different engagement strategies or exploring the impact of specific governance mechanisms. The analysis focused on identifying recurring themes across focus groups, potentially overlooking nuanced country-specific or technology-specific variations. Further research might employ mixed-methods approaches, incorporating quantitative data and exploring the implementation of specific engagement strategies in real-world contexts.